Hannity, Gingrich spread falsehoods to bolster Gingrich's claim that Dems are moving U.S. toward "dictatorship"
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: Sean Hannity and Newt Gingrich spewed falsehoods concerning Democratic economic proposals and policies to bolster Gingrich's claim that Democrats are moving the country "towards a political dictatorship."
During the March 25 edition of Fox News' Hannity, host Sean Hannity and Fox News contributor Newt Gingrich put forth several falsehoods in support of Gingrich's claim that Democratic economic policies are moving the country "towards a political dictatorship." During the segment, Gingrich also declared that the description in National Review contributing editor Jonah Goldberg's book, Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning, of "what a liberal fascist's economics would be like" is "frighteningly prescient" and could serve as "sort of an introductory guide to how the left is thinking this year."
Hannity and Gingrich spewed the following falsehoods concerning Democratic economic proposals and policies:
- Discussing what he claimed was evidence of "the biggest power grab," Hannity falsely asserted, "They have asked for, in just the last week, the Obama administration, the right to limit executive pay even for companies that are not getting a bailout." In fact, in his March 24 written testimony before the House Financial Services Committee, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner made clear that in referring to restrictions on employee compensation, he was talking only about "financial institutions that are receiving government assistance." Indeed, during the March 24 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs explicitly rejected the claim that the administration sought to "put a cap" on executive salaries at firms not receiving bailout funds, stating: "[T]here are not plans to do something broad like that."
- Gingrich went
on to claim, "We
are seeing the biggest power grab by politicians in American history. The
idea that they would propose that the Treasury could intervene and take
over non-bank, non-financial system assets gives them the potential to
basically create the equivalent of a dictatorship." In fact, in his March
24 written testimony, Geithner addressed authorizing the government to
manage troubled non-bank financial institutions, but not "non-financial
system assets." Geithner stated, "The
U.S. government does not have the legal means today to manage the orderly
restructuring of a large, complex, non-bank financial institution that
poses a threat to the stability of our financial system." He further stated:
As we have seen with AIG, distress at large, interconnected, non-depository financial institutions can pose systemic risks just as distress at banks can. The Administration proposes legislation to give the U.S. government the same basic set of tools for addressing financial distress at non-banks as it has in the bank context.The proposed resolution authority would allow the government to provide financial assistance to make loans to an institution, purchase its obligations or assets, assume or guarantee its liabilities, and purchase an equity interest.
The U.S. government as a conservator or receiver would have additional powers to sell or transfer the assets or liabilities of the institution in question, renegotiate or repudiate the institution's contracts (including with its employees), and prevent certain financial contracts with the institution from being terminated on account of the conservatorship or receivership.
This proposed legislation would fill a significant void in the current financial services regulatory structure with respect to non-bank financial institutions. Implementation would be modeled on the resolution authority that the FDIC has under current law with respect to banks.
- Gingrich subsequently asserted that "Congress had passed the authorization in the stimulus bill for AIG to pay those bonuses" and that "the money that was being paid to AIG employees" was "under a provision which the Congress itself had passed a month ago." But as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act did not create the right for AIG -- or any company -- to pay bonuses. Rather, AIG reportedly disclosed that it had entered into agreements to pay those bonuses more than a year ago, the Bush Treasury Department approved the AIG bailout with this agreement in place, and the relevant provision in the recovery act actually restricted the ability of companies receiving money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program to award bonuses in the future.
From the March 25 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
HANNITY: I want to get into, and I think all of the media is ignoring this, and the fact that he got a pass last night during this press conference is very, very troubling to me, and very specifically, I think this moves America down the road to socialism, the biggest power grab.
They have asked for, in just the last week, the Obama administration, the right to limit executive pay even for companies that are not getting a bailout. They saw it yesterday. We saw in the -- I believe it was The Washington Post -- they're actually seeking the right to seize firms. They want to use the reconciliation process to pass their health care bill, and cap and trade, which would eliminate the need for Republican votes in the historical sense, and even some Democrats are opposing.
Can you explain to our audience how dangerous this power grab is?
GINGRICH: Sure. Look, I think if you read Jonah Goldberg's book on Liberal Fascism and you read the chapter on what a liberal fascist's economics would be like, it's frighteningly prescient. I think he ought to, you know, re-issue it as sort of an introductory guide to how the left is thinking this year.
We are seeing the biggest power grab by politicians in American history. The idea that they would propose that the Treasury could intervene and take over non-bank, non-financial system assets gives them the potential to basically create the equivalent of a dictatorship. You don't want to do what they want, they take over your company.
You do what they want, Congress retroactively -- and this is what made last week's lynch mob like a third-world government, when the Congress literally got out of control, panicked, panicked because people were mad at it and it turned out that the Congress had passed the authorization in the stimulus bill for AIG to pay those bonuses. The Congress had approved it. The people at AIG were acting what they thought was the rules set by the government. Suddenly, they're being attacked. They are retroactively losing their money.
Why would anybody want to invest in a country --
HANNITY: Now, wait a minute.
GINGRICH: -- where [Rep.] Barney Frank [D-MA] and [Sen.] Chris Dodd [D-CT] can go back and retroactively take money away from you?
HANNITY: So if we put all these things together -- that they control executive pay, that they can take over firms, retroactively tax people or target individuals as they did -- you used the term dictatorship. That moves America towards a dictatorship?
GINGRICH: Sure. Look, it absolutely moves you towards a political dictatorship. The Constitution specifically prohibits the kind of bill that they passed in the House last week, to go back retroactively and confiscate 90 percent of the money that was being paid to AIG employees, under a provision which the Congress itself had passed a month ago. I mean, I think people need to look carefully at what despicable behavior this is.
















Ok... I have decided to use this --> LINK <-- sparingly from now on...
It is aweful tempting to use it with every single thread about FoxNoise specifically, but corporate owned news in general.
Either way... it is an extremely sad state that we find ourselves in this position here in America... very sad indeed!
Considering where the Bush regime brought us... I do think the link above is relevent to Newt, Sean, and in general FoxNoise that this thread was even needed.
let's not forget this little bit of fakery from a couple weeks ago, when fox was claiming that the obama administration was "singing a different tune this weekend" and showing a clip of biden saying "the fundamentals of the economy are strong". except that was biden last september, and he was criticizing mccain for saying that, which is what the full ciip of biden showed. someone at fox had to actually pull that clip up, edit it to show a false claim, and then put it on the air. did fox hold anyone responsible for that?
http://mediamatters.org/items/200903160026
Dictatorship, Socialism, Communism, Fascism?
Keep it up, the base eats this stuff up. And to everyone else it only shows how lacking in ideas the Republicans are. So far they've got two ideas, tax cuts and eternal war.
The base is eating it up and they are getting sick. My co-worker told me that he would not pi$$ in Obama's mouth if his guts were on fire. Hannity, FOX news, Limbauagh are going to far. It is one thing to exercise your free speech rights in a responsible manner, but to incite and inflame hatred is crossing the line. These goons are monetizing fear and hatred.
I agree. They're only appealing to the unhinged now. We've already had a church shooting from one of those types. If this keeps up more of the lunatics are going to harm someone.
GINGRICH: I mean, I think people need to look carefully at what despicable behavior this is.
MEMO TO NEWT: Hey, Newt, politics are inherently despicable and you were one of the most ardent practitioners of despicable politics...before you were forced out because of your own ethical lapses. And, Newt, the the type of systematic lying and dishonesty employed by your employer, FOX News is not despicable? You were an intelligent and powerful man, Newt, but your voice has now been reduced to background static on the most loathsome propaganda machine America has ever seen.
Newt, but your voice has now been reduced to background static on the most loathsome propaganda machine America has ever seen.
I didn't realize Newt worked in the Obama Administration
No, Newt Gingrich works for FOX News. How embarrassing for the former Speaker of the House... Anything for a buck, I guess.
dick, do you have any comment on hannity's completely false assertion that the obama administration wants to limit executive compensation in companies that are not getting taxpayer money? you do agree hannity is lying?
From the New York Times: March 21, 2009
Administration Seeks Increase in Oversight of Executive Pay
By Stephen LabatonWASHINGTON — The Obama administration will call for increased oversight of executive pay at all banks, Wall Street firms and possibly other companies as part of a sweeping plan to overhaul financial regulation, government officials said.
The outlines of the plan are expected to be unveiled this week in preparation for President Obama’s first foreign summit meeting in early April.
Seems like they floated a trial balloon and Gibbs may rescinded it recently. IN the testimony that MMFA lovers to cite from Timmy the Tax Evader this is a stand alone paragraph:
The issue of excessive compensation extends beyond AIG and requires reform of the system of incentives and compensation in the financial sector.
Seems like he is talking about everybody. There are no specifics and it is surrounded by comments on thos receiving TARP funds. But by this and the Times story from three days prior seems to say some action was/is being considered. If you want to believe what they say now, fine. We'll see. Remember: "We should never let a crisis go to waste."
SORRY: The Times quote ends with the line: "summit meeting in early April" I failed to put in italics
here's geithner's testimony. immediately following that "stand alone paragraph" he talks about obama specifically addressing those companies getting "government assistance". and then later he says the obama wants to "avoid taxpayer funded rewards for their failure".
http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/tg67.htm
make that, the obama administration wants to...
But, but...but that can't be true! Sean Hannity says that just last week the Obama adminstration asked for "the right to limit executive pay, even for companies not getting a bailout." Sean wouldn't say it if it wasn't true, would he? And I'm sure Sean must have some tape proving what he says is true...I'm sure he'll tell us all about his proof... but won't bother to show it.
Hannity is a joke...how could any person with any intelligence attempt to defend anything he says?
Cheney2012: But by this and the Times story from three days prior seems to say some action was/is being considered.
HANNITY: "They have asked for, in just the last week, the Obama administration, the right to limit executive pay even for companies that are not getting a bailout."
"(S)eems to say some action was/is being considerd.", as you say, is different from Hannity saying "They have asked for, just in the last week..." Hannity says it's a fait accompli...that's a lie. The administration denies the allegation. And who are we going to believe, an award winning liar like Sean Hannity?
IRONY and mefirst:
No mention from either of you on the NY Times article. I forgot to privide the link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/us/politics/22regulate.html
Reporter must have some sources.
Also this was Feb. 4th..it is Congress but will Obama buck his liberal friends over there. Also Geithner quoted in there prominently.
Mr. Geithner said he would consider “extending at least some of the TARP provisions and features of the $500,000 cap to U.S. companies generally.”
http://www.financialweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090203/REG/902039977/1003/TOC&template=printart
OK they haven't ASKED for it..yet. Why is it you guys always play word games and not deal with the substance of the issue at hand. You can't really deny tha tit is under consideration can you? And by both the Administration and Congress.
I believe someone cited Gibbs saying it wasn't going to happen in a press briefing a few days ago. OK..I'll accept that for now, but at the very least they sent up a trial balloon here using many avenues so they should come under criticism.
OK they haven't ASKED for it..yet. Why is it you guys always play word games and not deal with the substance of the issue at hand.
You don't get it... Hannity loves to throw out supposition, speculation, distortions and outright lies as proven facts in support of his arguments designed to raise outrage. If the Obam administration ever publicly asks for authority to cap executive compensation in all corporations, even those not receiving government bailout funds, come back and we'll talk. In the meantime, this is just more hype from Sean Hannity. And if the administration never asks for that kind of authority Hannity won't admit he was wrong...but he will have already created the impression that the adminstration was guilty of being power hungry.
It should be pretty clear that they are considering it. Do you even acknowledge that? Of course not. Let's go after Hannity
Here is a public quote from Timmy Taxes:
Mr. Geithner said he would consider “extending at least some of the TARP provisions and features of the $500,000 cap to U.S. companies generally.”
I see you ignored that above. Who cares what Hannity says or what Obama and his cronies say. Let's care about what they want to do.
No. You're ignoring the fact that Geithner said that he would CONSIDER it.
Even if he were to decide it, I believe it would have to get further approval from people more powerful than he.
I considered moving to Canada when Bush was elected a second time. I decided against it. See the difference?
"OK they haven't ASKED for it..yet. "
wow an admission of you being factually incorrect about something.......but you know what you need to admit your just plain wrong.
just because they may be asking for it doesn't mean they are going to get it.
ill put it in terms that your mentor Dick himself would understand.
the threat of force is more useful sometimes than actuall force itself.
meaning just by threatening to cap exec pay, (which given that these compaines are on the public dole, i think of them as OWNED by the public, and we damn well have the right to say what goes) gets these chuckleheads to wise up and behave themselves
I agree that exec pay should be capped for those receiving bailout money.
Numerous reports, sources and quotes from the Treasury Secretary and Congress (Barney Frank) point to the fact that the Democrats want to expand these regulations to other companies.
Hannity, Rush, O'Reilly or anybody else who wants to point this out should point it out and should be commended for being a watchdog.
They aren't playing the Olbermann/Maddow game of still bashing Bush. Ancient history that it is.
Shooting the messenger is only evidence that you are in favor of the policy they are against.
commended? i would buy into that if they were actually doing so.....but i haven't heard about Billo the Clown and his Three Ring Circus (Fox noise) doing so. all i hear from them is that we are being ruined, turned into socialists, and every other bull crap neo con talking point in the book.
"They aren't playing the Olbermann/Maddow game of still bashing Bush. Ancient history that it is."
Oh really? Bush being out of office for not even 3 months and that's "ancient"? Well I guess to a conservative, 2 months of not having a Republican president is more like a century. I can bring up some MMFA threads of conservatives trying to blame Clinton, or even Carter, for the current financial crisis, the former being out of office for a little over 8 years, and the latter being out of office for 28 years.
As far as I am conserned OLBERMANN and MADDOW can bash BUSH all they want. He deserves every bit of it.
So, what you're saying is that they haven't asked for it.
Thanks for clearin' that up.
hey Dick. let me point a thing or two out to you.
"WASHINGTON — The Obama administration will call for increased oversight of executive pay at all banks, Wall Street firms and possibly other companies as part of a sweeping plan to overhaul financial regulation, government officials said."
where does it say that they are looking to limit executive pay? i assume that what you said is your interpretation. but your wrong.
no where in you above post and what you cited has said anything about "limiting" it says very specifically...."oversight" and last time i looked there is a bit of a difference between "limiting" and "oversight"
The fact that Dick2012 didn't know the meaning of "oversight" was an oversight on his part.
Do you have anything of substnce to add? It would be a welcome change since we never see that from you.
That's SUBSTANCE since I'm sure you will point out my typo.
Speaking of meanings of words, do you know what REFUTE means? You never seem willing or able to do it.
All you ever do is spew out the same far RIGHT WING CR-P that LIMBAUGH, HANNITY, and LEVIN do. Nothing origional from them or you.
Word games and more word games:
What about this do you not understand:
Mr. Geithner said he would consider “extending at least some of the TARP provisions and features of the $500,000 cap to U.S. companies generally.”
http://www.financialweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090203/REG/902039977/1003/TOC&template=printart
You see, he said: $500,000 cap
Yeah I would define that as oversight and not limiting. Well, I'd define it that way if I were a moronic liberal who needs Obama to tell me how to think.
Dick
When you leave out the context of the comment you can skew a comment! Two lines before your quote the artical stated
"Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said last month that he might try to extend to all U.S. companies a restriction that prohibits bailout banks from taking a tax deduction of more than $500,000 in pay for each executive. "
A cap on the tax deduction is a "Feature" of the cap to U.S. companies. When you leave off that TARP seeks insentives to curb executive pay then you basterdize the comment you quoted!
as i said before Dick......there is a far cry from asking for it and desiring something that actually GETTING what your asking for.
i would desire to have a royal blue 1967 shelby gt 500......doesn't mean im going to GET IT.
same for considering.....there is a diference between considering usign your power for somethign and actually using it.
they may be word games to you.....but it changes the facts. from actually doing it to exploring options.
here is something you may relate to Dick...
your twin and bush wanted to invade Iran, threatened them alot......didn't actually do it.
and here is something for YOUR understanding.......had it not been for the systematic deregulation movement perpetuated by neo cons.....well we probably wouldn't be in this mess to begin with.
and don't try and think there is any kind of rational argument that i would be wrong on this cause you know what...it was the same bull crap with the savings and loan collapse. neo cons said deregulation deregulation. and look what happened then. this is near the same damn thing. and it was bull then, just as it is bull now
You see, he said CONSIDER.
moron.
What about the word CONSIDER rather than APPROVE do YOU not understand?
Mr. Geithner is the Treasury Secretary - NOT the President, and not the Congress. Thus, he is not the final authority on any cap, $500K or otherwise.
Its a shame you aren't a "moronic liberal who needs Obama to tell you how to think" . . . your understanding of it might be easier than a brain dead wingnut who needs Insanity and Newt to tell them what to think . . .
Sorry the Obama adminstration is not a propaganda machine. The Bush/Cheney administration was one and illeagaly at that. They are the worst ever. Get a life and get real.
Actually you are right. A machine would indicate efficiency and something that runs smoothly. That in NOT the Obama Admin. Far from it
Bush/Cheney did not run soomthly if they did they would not have lost billions of us dollars in Iraq. Also the Obama administration has not done anything that is catagorized as propaganda. they have been telling the truth something that is a new concept to you.
Do tell . . . what do you consider an efficient, smooth running machine?
Would it be an administration that
- started a war of choice over nonexistent WMDs that cost the lives of 4000+ US servicepersons?
- allowed $9 billion to go MISSING in Iraq?
- outed a covert CIA agent in retaliation for her husband's disagreement with the president on Iraq?
- played air guitar while a major US drowned?
If so, that's a helluva definition of "efficiency" . . .
BUSH and CHENEY running things smoothly? What a joke.
Note to self... TRY to attribute it to sarcasm, even if it IS explained by stupidity.
FOX News is the news media equivalent of Championship Wrestling. When appearing on FOX Gingrich plays a role. What you said about Newt also applies to others, such as Pat Buchanan, for example. He is much more moderate on MSNBC...but when he's on FOX it's lunatic fringe time. This is what's expected of them when they appear on FOX. It's what FOX's audience wants to see. How embarrassing it must be for an intelligent, edcucated man like Newt Gingrich to sit next to Sean Hannity as though he were his intellectual equal. Sad, really...
Actually, they're moral equals. Intellectual ability has nothing to do with it.
I agree Irony, but I have to ask myself why does he do it? It doesn't need the money and you kinda maybe have to think he knows he is just spouting bullsh*t to make Hannity look like he knows what he is talking about. Everyone knows that tax against AIG bonus is going to go nowhere, but these idiots sit there and make it sound like it is law, signed sealed, and delivered. Just once i want to see someone on these Sunday shows call old Newt to task.
GINGRICH: Sure. Look, it absolutely moves you towards a political dictatorship.
Isn't that what Bill Ayers planned all along, with Barack Obama as his tool...? ;>)
Are there any serious commentators on FOX...?
And, BYW, wasn't it Newt Gingrich who put into play the plan for a permanent Republican majority. In other words, Newt favored abolishing the two-party political system. Now if that doesn't move the country towards a political dictatorship, I don't know what does...
BYW = BTW Sorry...
Irony, good point, I was thinking the same thing myself.
And to add to that, Bush/Cheney and some of their SC nominees embraced that unitary executive theory. Permanent majority and a unitary executive from the same party? Sounds a lot like what they fear.
Ironic, isn't it? That's why I have a good laugh every time I hear Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Morris, etc., etc. accuse Democrats of being all about grabbing POWER.
Of course we can all figure out, even the right-wing apologists, that when it's a Republican president reaching for as much power as possible, it's a good thing in keeping with the unitary executive theory.
When it's a Democratic president reaching out to balance the economy, it's a dictatorship.
Got it.
AMEN to that. I lost count of how many times hannity said "all the democrats are interested in is grabbing power" duning the BUSH years. Of course no good REPUBLICAN would ever consider the same thing, would they?
It appears to me that the Dem's have "grabbed" their power through the election process. Bush and his cronies were interested in grabbing power through bribes (Boehner, K Street Project), bullying (firing the federal prosecutors), stonewalling (ignoring congressional subpoenas), and outright disdain for the law (signing statements).
Oh don't be such a liberal, do you wnat the terrorist to win or something?
[hypfoxrisy: condemning today something that you forgot you said yesterday in a bogus and phony effort to apear 'fair and balanced.']
We were close to having martial law declared in 2001 under the Bush adm.
I remember that being floated around. I remember hearing about that and thinking about tanks rolling in our streets and troops on every block. GWB came closer to making that a reality than anyone else I can think of...
Yet another case of the GOP projecting their attitudes and policies upon those who do not hold those attitudes or agree with their policies.
Remember GWBush's famous quote? "This would be heck of a lot easier if this was a dictatorship, as long as I was the dictator.”Who was it again who wanted to move the country to a dictatorship after 9/11 "changed everything?"
Nice post, but I could sum it up in three words:
Republicans are hypocrites.
:)
COMMONSENCE, TRUER WORDS WERE NEVER SPOKEN.
Do not insult hypocrites Repubicans are worse by far.
Yep!
I'd take these comments seriously if they were spoken by two people with the slightest sense of integrity.
My question for the Hannity/Gingritch love-fest would be this:
What kind of an administration would you consider one that:
1. Engages the services of its own _private_ military resources for the purpose of National Adventurism.
2. Deploys personal and private assassination squads.
3. Has working plans for the deployment of military operations within their own country.
I think they would call it "The America we know and love." They worked hard enough to bring it to life.
The funny thing is that all 3 of these are against the law.
I think the list could be made longer as well. Seems to me Dictatorship was already well on its way. I leave it to others to add to the list.
hmm, I just noticed that the first line of my post may not quite be read as: questions to be put to Hannity and Gingrich. that was the intention anyways.
Considering Hannity never allows any challenges to his view to take hold on his program (although sometimes Gingrich actually disabuses Hannity of his off the wall perspective)
Most all we get to do is ask rhetorical questions Hannity
"They saw it yesterday. We saw in the -- I believe it was The Washington Post -- they're actually seeking the right to seize firms."
Golly Sean,way to really nail down those sources.That's why you're so credible..and stuff.
There are memos that are being leaked now that show the Bush leagal team had worked out a way for Bush to make himself a dictator for life. He basicly was going to throw out the constitution but justice prevailed in this case. Only this case.
Do you have a source for that? I'm not questioning your integrity, I want to do some research for myself. :)
here are a few sites.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-bush-memos4-2009mar04,0,643986.story
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-documentsmar03,0,6427490.story
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/34757prs20080402.html
If you need more google Bush administration memos.
Excellent! Thank you for the help!
Do your friends and neighbors know that you are a complete psycho? They must be warned.
Gingrich went on to claim, "We are seeing the biggest power grab by politicians in American history."
Um, OK, Newt.
Remind me once again which party/administration
- wiretapped its own citizens without a warrant
- suspended the writ of habeas corpus
- tried to put forth the idea of the "Unitary Executive"
- put forth the "Extraordinary Powers Act" that allows the president to suspend civil liberties and impose martial law in the event of an emergency {which can be anything he defines it as}
Then, get back to me on "the biggest power grab by politicians in American history" . . .
Could it be the GOP?
And we get this claptrap from the very same guy who used a kangaroo court 10 years ago to try to depose a democratically elected president. Un-friggin-believable!
I remember 8 long yrs of Dick Cheney and his trained monkey David Addison using every legal, and illegal, public and clandestine effort possible to expand the Presidency/Vice Presidency's powers, and to isolate the judicial and legilative branches from any of the levers of power.
They spied on Americans without warrants, or any oversight in expressed violation of the FISA laws, and National Security Directives, secretly made energy policy, defied Congression request, not to mention supeonas. They considered the law a tool for their consolidation of power, and of not consequence whenever breaking the law, they violated the spirit, and letter of their oath to 'protect, preserve, and defend the constitution' and governed as though they were above the law.
Now 'Newt the GOP Cheerleader' would use terms only now, after 8yrs of this behavior, like dictatorship, fascism???
We have fallen so far in America when the best opining we can find is this scoundrel, liar, and criminal as an authority!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
The only terms I'd like to hear Newt talk about are the prison terms the Republicans deserve for putting our country in the mess it's in now.
DONGRADY, You are sooooo right. all the leaders of the BUSH administration deserve to be thrown in prison.
What a load of bs. The biggest power grab in US history was the unitary executive BS the Bush administration pulled and that was a lot closer to a dictatorship than anything the Obama administration has or will try to do. People like Hannity are too freakin' stupid to realise that Bush getting away with that set a precident. If Obama wanted to go that route he could more easily do it. Lucky for him Obama isn't the Dem equivalent of Bush.
The GOP need to become like the major oppisition parties in other contries and become loyal. Right now the are selling The United States of America down the drain.
Sean Hannity has been arguing that the Obama Administration is guilty of fear mongering.
Um,...m Sean, if we fall for Obama's fear mongering, do the terrorists win?
Why is it that when we declared war on terrorism, every atrocity committed by the Dubyatards was explained away with "We are war! If we continue to question our president, the terrorists win!" Anyone who said anything untoward about our former idiot in chief was a traitor?
Sean, um,..., by your own definition, aren't you now a traitor?
Take a look at your so-called budget and speak no more. Please. Why isn't the MSM continuously covering this debacle? If President Obama put something this simplistic out and called it a budget, the media would be all over it. Again, just like the McCain/Palin campaign, Republicans get a pass. Same old same old.
Kettle: Aren't you hypocritical now! Pot: I just called you scorched, not black.
This geek wants to run for president someday soon. He is a goofball to beat goofballs. It is a demonstrable truth that this country has moved closer to dictatorship when it was in the hands of GOPS, not Dems. Nixon told Frost: "When the president does it, it isn't criminal." He had a hit list. He ran the office like he was a Musolini in training. Reagan had Ollie North in the White House basement violating federal law against trading arms for hostages; in fact, doing any trading at all with Iran. Bush II brought us so close to fascist totalitarianism, only the persistence of folks like you kept him from doing so.
These patooties are the worst sort of hypocrites.
A "Political Dictatorship" huh? Is that anything like a "Permanent Majority"?
It seems to me that the ones who got us to this mess are now screaming the loudest to stiffle any and all opposition to their criminality. The bald faced lies and the liars that spout off are the ones who wish us to be in a dictatorship and actually we were for eight years. No criticism you traitor. We'll look into your e-mail accounts and your bank accounts and we'll go after you in the papers and the airwaves and you will be destroyed. Sound familiar? 8 years and still the flaming liars are at it. Only this time they lost and I can only hope they still stay that way forever. Who needs a liars club to be your leader in the free world????